this may be where i get confused on how the media uses the term free market, but do you think there can be a free market and government at the same time? if the government was even something such as a nightwatchman government, could that be free market with decisions really reflecting a free market? i figure people also have definitions for government that makes the government a coercive monopoly over geography, which does not sound free market at all. a free market seems like it would allow competition for any service that could be provided, and that would include any service a nightwatchman state would provide.
In the literal sense, no you can't have a free market when there is an overarching entity that has a monopoly on legal force which it uses to extort wealth from people.
But most minarchists and people who allegedly advocate "free markets" simply don't really see how a truly free society would function without that entity there inflicting its coercion and violence. They will tell you "to have freedom you need to have your rights protected, so you need government." As non sequitur as this might be, that's the common line of thinking.
For a nice write up on this, see here.
Strictly speaking, no.
Practically speaking, probably not.
Theoretically and loosely speaking, prettymuch.
That is to say that the state, so long as it has ANY powers of taxation distorts the market from its truly "free" form, but if govt spending was .01 percent of GDP and there are no regulations on the market, only a very certain kind of person is going to argue that teh free market would be functionally different than that.
interesting article jj
one of the things i'm thinking about is defence contracts and other contracts with government. it looks like in either case, government will contract with private organization to supply equipment for defence, or private business will contract with other private business to do the same. right now it does not seem like government's method of deciding who gets a contract would represent a free market in the same way that private enterprises would compete. it seem's like government contracts go more towards croynyism than private to private contracts. seems people will argue that the government should not give science grants because it could not determine by market forces the most effective people to give grants to, so it makes me question how the government could decide which companies will provide research and supplies for state actions such as defence. a bad investment in private to private will be beating by the competition, so a bad investment in by a government would mean disaster for the people subject to the governments decision. if there is a call for a monopoly on the use of force, i'm not sure how supply and demand can work and who will make the decisions about how the government will defend the citzens. even it's the voluntarily paid nightwatchmen state it seems some like ayn rand advocate for, at the least it seems the payers would get power over nonpayers and the highest payers would have the most power in the monopoly on the use of force and which private companies win the contracts to supply the government forces.
cab21:it seem's like government contracts go more towards croynyism than private to private contracts.
Bingo. Plus it's not like there's a way for a legitimate price mechanism to work when you're dealing with an entity that has bottomless pockets and endless levels of bureaucracy. You get things like this.
But I talked about the contracting aspect a bit with respect to this very topic of defense here.
a bad investment in private to private will be beating by the competition, so a bad investment in by a government would mean disaster for the people subject to the governments decision.
Thomas Sowell talks about this here.
if there is a call for a monopoly on the use of force, i'm not sure how supply and demand can work and who will make the decisions about how the government will defend the citzens.
...Or how the citizens might legally defend themselves, should their government overstep the bounds they placed around it. This was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
payers would get power over nonpayers and the highest payers would have the most power in the monopoly on the use of force and which private companies win the contracts to supply the government forces.
Which is basically what we have now.
For more on free society, see here.
Well no.
But I think the terminology is somewhat confusing.
The term "free market" in common statist parlance seems to be conceptualizing freedom/oppression on a set of different spectrums or bandwidths with "free" or "restricted" falling in different places between the two poles. Opposing bands of statists try to assert that their placement on the assorted spectrums is better or more widely shared than the others.
It seems that when libertarians conceptualize "free" or "restricted" they go for a far more literal interpretation. Things either are or are not free.
For my part as a statist I've become more inclined to skip the "free market" jargon altogether and just think of the state in terms of varying degrees of restrictedness or oppression.
Strictly speaking, no. Practically speaking, probably not. Theoretically and loosely speaking, prettymuch. That is to say that the state, so long as it has ANY powers of taxation distorts the market from its truly "free" form, but if govt spending was .01 percent of GDP and there are no regulations on the market, only a very certain kind of person is going to argue that teh free market would be functionally different than that.
We agree on something.
interesting articles and videos
one part of the second amendment video , at about 14 minutes, about the regulated militia confused me. it seemed to say that men were mandated to have guns and report to a miliatia commander, and this was supposedly separate from a government? it says people had to report 4-5 times a year and if they did not have a gun, the militia would buy a gun for the man. what makes a citizen miltia different from a government if people are mandated to have guns and report? it says people had the duty to own firearms and the duty to report to a appointed captain, that seems a bit statelike to me. it uses, the word duty, but to me that does not seem different in intention to a mandate. saying someone has a duty to be armed, trained, and report to superiar officers does not seem like a right to arms, but a requirement. how is this citizen militia even supposed to be run, if not by a government or effective government of some institution people in the community are mandated to join?
reading the wiki on militias, it said after the civil war there were state militias composed almost entirely of blacks, rifle clubs and paramilitary groups composed entirely of whites, and the two would attack each other. while this does not show a state mandated militia, it shows problems of a state having a militia as well as privite militials starting agression against one another.
cab21:even it's the voluntarily paid nightwatchmen state it seems some like ayn rand advocate for, at the least it seems the payers would get power over nonpayers and the highest payers would have the most power in the monopoly
I am always confused when minarchists try to say, "look, we need the state for protection of rights; but hey, anarchists, the taxes could be voluntary."
Sure they can, but then it wouldn't be a state anymore. If the taxes of the rights-protecting state are voluntary, then the it's really just another company competing for business, isn't it?
I have never understood the case for voluntary taxes...these are called charges for service. Every company has them.
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
^^^^^yes but then the state that has voluntary taxes can still pass laws and coerce you. even if theyre not going after your wallet.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
for being a objectivist, rand never did write out objective laws for how government ought to try cases objectivly, so i am confused with it as well. even if contracts were awarded based on some objective criteria, i don't think that would be free market, since the free market has preferences and is not simply robotic as to who offers in a blind bid to provide the lowest price or other objective criteria. i don't even know how quality is be measured objectivly. we have all sorts of companies say they make the best gun, i don't know how a real free market decision could be made to call one the best that all government ought to buy by objective criteria. in todays government, we get all sorts of contracts and equipment bought for the military that the military does not even want to does not even keep track of it's delivery.
John James : But most minarchists and people who allegedly advocate "free markets" simply don't really see how a truly free society would function without that entity there inflicting its coercion and violence. They will tell you "to have freedom you need to have your rights protected, so you need government." As non sequitur as this might be, that's the common line of thinking.
The problem here is in how coercion, rights, and in particular property are defined.
Note here that I'm not arguing for the existence of state. I'm going to argue that simply saying man has the right to own property and to engage in voluntary exchange isn't a sufficiently explanatory standard such that all men implicitly know what the rules are that define whether or not a behavior is coercion, theft, or any of the other traditional crimes which a use of force combats, and thus is deemed legitimate.
I can construct thought experiments that demonstrate the edge conditions for any of the definitions. However, the point of the exercise, is to realize that rights are a socially constructed phenomena.
There are metaphysical facts of reality which explain the reasons for the social concept of rights and property. However, the devil is in the details about how a social group comes up with norms and laws about what constitutes ownership and what constitutes property.
In the article you referenced, there is a particular phrase which is glossed over as if it's implicitly understood and defined :
"This difference is the principle of force and power – the principle of government. It is our very core belief as anarchists that force and power are wrong; that any involuntary subjection is always comparable to the end of the world."
Force and power are implicitly evil or never acceptable means to any end in this context. But as soon as presented with an idea of self-defense, in the case of bodily harm, we immediately say, well that's a legitimate use of force. While I agree, it's also force.
Property ownership in particular of land, is not just a right of use, but a denial of legitimate use by others. The only possible means by which to enforce such a claim, is through force. Now if one defines an illegitimate use of property as a use of force, you end up with an awareness/knowledge issue. The issue is in social communication and definition of the boundary conditions that create an owner/property relationship, and in particular a means for establishing when it occurs and how to be aware of it.
The devil is in the details. So, when a purely ideological anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist (like I want to be, but am struggling with) says things like "any involuntary subjection is always comparable to the end of the world." I'm stuck trying to understand how and who will interpret and arbitrate the inevitable confusions and conflicts that must arise because it's just not that simple to see the property->owner relationship.
I can see your connection with your body. I can't see or interact with you except through it. But anything not attached to a human body, becomes slightly more difficult to be as sure and clear about. Common Law, Natural Property Rights, which seem to me to be very closely related are a specific well-ordered solution to the property problem. I can accept that private dispute resolution organizations can in fact arise to provide services to address these eventualities, but acting like states aren't one type of solution to that problem is ridiculous.
The only issue I have with states, is the implicit non-compete clause they claim exists.* Someone's going to stake a claim to be a legitimate user of force. If you want stolen property back, you either suck it up like Gandhi (not a bad idea necessarily), or you or an agent operating on your behalf has to go and get it back.
*This isn't actually my only issue with states, but any other complaint I have can be traced back to this original issue. I do agree that it's actions are harmful, but not being able to seek redress or abolish or break free form it's edicts and punishments, traces back to the monopoly on force, not to the use of force itself within a social context.
can be a free market and government
No, the State is by definition aggressive, and a free market is by definition a market absent aggression.
cab21:one part of the second amendment video , at about 14 minutes, about the regulated militia confused me. it seemed to say that men were mandated to have guns and report to a miliatia commander, and this was supposedly separate from a government?
Separate from the Federal Government, for sure. The Constitution is what instituted the Federal Government in the first place, so obviously any "requirements" prior to that came from some smaller source. Notice right before the statement you're talking about, the narrator states "colonial militias had been in existence for over 150 years..."
Militias are generally considered a local thing, until they are called upon to band together for a larger threat.
Notice, at 8:50, the narrator states "...the founders opposed anything but a small national military."
If you look at the history, there doesn't seem to be any large scale legislation on the subject until after the Constitution. Note:
"[George Washington] experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative."
what makes a citizen miltia different from a government if people are mandated to have guns and report?
Nothing. But that's irrelevant because no one is trying to differentiate them. The video is making the case for the 2nd Amendment and the meaning of the words at the time they were written. (Which is the only meaning that matters). Remember, the Constitution is a minarchist creation...which itself created the Federal Government. So none of the founders were trying to make an argument for a truly (i.e. literally) free society like what we're talking about here.
Notice I only linked the video in supplement to your point about "if there is a call for a monopoly on the use of force". That is a hypothetical that obviously assumes a not-free society, at least in the absolute terms you're seeing people speak of here.
Minarchist: can be a free market and government No, the State is by definition aggressive, and a free market is by definition a market absent aggression.
Define aggressive.
David B:Force and power are implicitly evil or never acceptable means to any end in this context. But as soon as presented with an idea of self-defense, in the case of bodily harm, we immediately say, well that's a legitimate use of force. While I agree, it's also force.
This is why many anarcho-capitalists are more careful with their terms. If you have a problem with Per's use of the word "force", just play your definition game that you talked about in the first part of the post and pretend he said "aggression" (as understood as "the initiation of force").
You'll notice Adam Kokesh is quite eloquent and precise when he speaks on this subject. Here's a great example.
Give some examples of where this relationship is not (or cannot be made to be) easily seen (or at least easily enough), and these conflicts that "must" arise.
I don't see them being many, or that significant.
acting like states aren't one type of solution to that problem is ridiculous.
K. Acting like shooting you in the face isn't a solution for you looking at me funny is ridiculous.
I mean, it solves the problem, does it not?
I would definitely recomment checking out the relevant links at The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread, in particular,
What Libertarianism Is
Courts/Law, Security/Defense (Free Society reading list & threads)
And overall,
Beginner videos (politics)
David B: Minarchist:can be a free market and governmentNo, the State is by definition aggressive, and a free market is by definition a market absent aggression.Define aggressive.
Minarchist:can be a free market and governmentNo, the State is by definition aggressive, and a free market is by definition a market absent aggression.
Careful. I get the sense the minarchist doesn't like anyone asking for definitions.
The Texas Trigger: I am always confused when minarchists try to say, "look, we need the state for protection of rights; but hey, anarchists, the taxes could be voluntary." Sure they can, but then it wouldn't be a state anymore. If the taxes of the rights-protecting state are voluntary, then the it's really just another company competing for business, isn't it? I have never understood the case for voluntary taxes...these are called charges for service. Every company has them.
Maybe the Senate Majority Leader can clear things up...
A violation of property rights. If you want more information about my views on property rights, see my post at the bottom of the page linked below.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/30690.aspx?PageIndex=1
i think the monopoly comment came from ayn rand's minarchy where she says a government having a monopoly on the use of force. i'm not sure if she would or would not include the 2nd amendment. perhaps it's that there would be limits to self defence of self defence and relaliation would come from the state and not individuals with her philosophy/ although she does not seem to write it out well. the most i can find is rand saying ideas, not guns, are required to protect people ultimatly.
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/guns.html
i think if there is a government, it's use of force would have to have separate catagories from what is allowed for private force and the government would be able to do things that a citizen could not. people could own the same weapons state or nonstate, but the authorization of use would be different.
right now i would consider government a not-free society, so trying to see if there was a way it could be free market was the challange.
cab21:i think the monopoly comment came from ayn rand's minarchy where she says a government having a monopoly on the use of force.
*shrug* Either way, minarchy is minarchy (despite what our resident minarchist would like to have you believe).
i'm not sure if she would or would not include the 2nd amendment. perhaps it's that there would be limits to self defence of self defence and relaliation would come from the state and not individuals with her philosophy/ although she does not seem to write it out well. the most i can find is rand saying ideas, not guns, are required to protect people ultimatly.
Rand loved the Constitution. So I wouldn't be surprised if she would support the amendment. Hell...at times it seems like she'd support it no matter what it said.
But again I'm not really sure why any of this is relevant or what it has to do with what we're discussing here.
You mean like how it is in every geographical area governed by a state?
Like most of us here have said, there isn't. It's a contradiction.
I must have somehow appeared to you to be new to libertarian ideas. If I need to I guess I'll go there first.
I started getting out of my own personal reading, and began participating in online discussions here back in 2002-2005 or so. I can't seem to get in and find it but I spent a lot of time hashing through a lot of both economic, philosophic and political stuff there. An article I wrote that came out of those discussions is Government? Why?
So having spent a lot of time for many years in the books of Rothbard and Mises, Spooner and Thoreau and Spencer, Rand, Nozick. Reading Walt Williams, Lew Rockwell, etc., etc. for at least 10+ years now, its a little demeaning to have someone suggest that I go watch some beginner's videos on politics.
In the end, in the Ethics of Liberty one thing sits wrong with me. To get there, you have to start however, with Praxeology and Mises. It all begins with the ought/is dichotomy. The source of IS statements (or truth) is Reality. Meaning to make statements of fact, is to say something that's true. But ought statements, the normative arises from man. It arises from intentionality, from purposeful behavior, from human action. Mises understood this, and got what it really means. Mises provided a value-free science of human action. He called it praxeology. He makes truth statements about the a priori categories that arise from the category of human action. Praxeology doesn't make Capitalism right. The "rightness" of Capitalism is a value judgment each man makes on his own. All praxeology gives us is value-free analysis of the consequences of private property and voluntary exchange, such a system is called the Free Market, or Capitalism.
But the science of Praxeology is incomplete. Mises recognized that he had a value-free science that was the mother science from which all social science flowed, but something was missing :
The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science - Up to now the only part of praxeology that has been developed into a scientific system is economics. A Polish philosopher, Tadeusz Kotarbinski, is trying to develop a new branch of praxeology, the praxeological theory of conflict and war as opposed to the theory of cooperation or economics.
Now, I can't read Polish, so I'm left to wonder what happened to this work. I've looked and I can't find a continuation. But when I found this line in my most recent reading of Mises work, I was left wondering if I hadn't hit on something in my previous article on ender's website.
There is a metaphysical real occurence of men acting with plans that cannot both be implemented in reality and both achieve their end.
Feeling I'd hit on something I wrote "All Human Science starts with Praxeology", I make this argument :
He made it abundantly clear to me that one needs to be clear about dividing between value-free theory (or science) and purpose driven application of theory (or technology). And what's missing in modern political science, is science. In particular it's not a value-free science rooted in praxeology. Liberalism, Natural Property Rights, Voluntarism, Socialism, Communism, etc. are technology. In some cases people are able to get away with the political equivalent of divining rods (socialism, democracy, anarcho-communism), and it's because we don't have a value-free scientific theory of politics. We can't even give the boundaries of the problem domain.
So, newbie links... ummm... ok.
John James: David B:Force and power are implicitly evil or never acceptable means to any end in this context. But as soon as presented with an idea of self-defense, in the case of bodily harm, we immediately say, well that's a legitimate use of force. While I agree, it's also force. This is why many anarcho-capitalists are more careful with their terms. If you have a problem with Per's use of the word "force", just play your definition game that you talked about in the first part of the post and pretend he said "aggression" (as understood as "the initiation of force"). You'll notice Adam Kokesh is quite eloquent and precise when he speaks on this subject. Here's a great example.
You're assuming a technical solution to an underlying problem. Kokesh can be as eloquent as he'd like to be, and I happen to have been making these same argumetns and having these same discussions for years. That doesn't solve the problem I'm pointing out.
John James: The devil is in the details. So, when a purely ideological anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist (like I want to be, but am struggling with) says things like "any involuntary subjection is always comparable to the end of the world." I'm stuck trying to understand how and who will interpret and arbitrate the inevitable confusions and conflicts that must arise because it's just not that simple to see the property->owner relationship. Give some examples of where this relationship is not (or cannot be made to be) easily seen (or at least easily enough), and these conflicts that "must" arise. I don't see them being many, or that significant.
Then you fail to understand and recognize the enormous importance of the existence of law. Not that law is the right solution to the social phenomena which gives rise to it, but that it's existence in and of itself points to a significant and important social phenomena that bears analysis and explanation. Because the source of law is human action, praxeology is the starting point for understanding the entire political sphere, of which law is part.
John James: acting like states aren't one type of solution to that problem is ridiculous. K. Acting like shooting you in the face isn't a solution for you looking at me funny is ridiculous. I mean, it solves the problem, does it not?
Good you get my point. There's nothing inherent in the action, or in our current definition of human action (Praxeology in Mises work) that explains or defines what makes any action right or wrong. In fact it can't, nor should it.
Ask then the source of the objection? I don't want you to hit me, you want to hit me. Why am I right and you're wrong? The social norm is that it's "wrong" to hit another man. I can give you good praxeological analysis of why that convention in society exists, we might even find good biological explanations of why such aversion to violence might be a part of the way the human brain works. But reality doesn't give us that rule. It's a choice that we make, a norm we adopt and choose. Reality reinforces it through the necessary side effects. But right and wrong have as their source purposeful action. Human action is the source of the normative, you cannot place it into the underlying reality. But I can place the field of politics into a reality that has human action, and do it without asserting any speciic norm about what man should or shouldn't do. Norms about right and wrong behavior are a political solution(technology), to an underlying metaphysically necessary occurence(understood by theory), and this is the point I'm making and have been. Theory explains how a technological solution to conflict (laws, norms, political institutions) will necessarily impact the individuals and the actions and interactions of the members of society. Public ownership for example leads to the "tragedy of the commons". Praxeology explains why that's so. Praxeology doesn't say it's a wrong solution. It just has necessary side effects.
John James: The only issue I have with states, is the implicit non-compete clause they claim exists.* Someone's going to stake a claim to be a legitimate user of force. If you want stolen property back, you either suck it up like Gandhi (not a bad idea necessarily), or you or an agent operating on your behalf has to go and get it back. I would definitely recomment checking out the relevant links at The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread, in particular, What Libertarianism Is Courts/Law, Security/Defense (Free Society reading list & threads) And overall, Beginner videos (politics)
I hope I don't need to explain why I feel a little disrespected by the rest of that?
For some more thoughts of mine on these issues look here, that's probably the best post I've participated in. In particular this, this, this, and this
A Praxeological category of conflict is the necessary root of a praxeological science of Politics, here and here are some of posts on that topic.
So in interpreting what I have to say, understand I reject the normative content of liberalism as truth statements. I personally affirm as my own goals the goals and techniques of liberalism which is to me a technology for addressing the conflicts that arise in social human action.
wth? My response just got held for moderator approval?
Adam is very eloquent about how he accounts for libertarian theory. But that doesn't change any of what I said. Definitions are in fact important.
The problem domains of Ethics and Politics are normative. Science is value free. Physics is value free, technology and the engineering disciplines are the implementations of technical solutions to achieve specific ends using the underlying science. A jet engine can be explained using laws of physics. But the functional operation of a jet engine is understood in the purpose for which it was designed. All human generated phenomena have purpose. While our sciences are value free they even have purpose, they give us understanding. They're "value" for understanding, is in not being biased, but in being accurate.
A science of Ethics or a science of Politics must be value-free. Liberalism therefore can be analyzed without judging the outcomes it produces. The judgment of it's fitness for any society is for the individuals to decide. If they want the outcomes that necessarily follow from it then they ought to pursue it. But the Ultimate Ends of any man are inviolate. I don't get to say what you "Good" means to you. My ultimate ends, my values, my goals, the means I use, are mine to determine. You don't get a say. Science's value is in describing the necessary outcomes that follow from specific actions.
Praxeology describes the categories of the action itself as action, other sciences may describe necessary outcomes of the physical effects in reality of the action. But the normative stance arises in the purposeful nature of human action. Therefore, define the scientific basis for analyzing the outcomes of any specific political solution.
Economics is value free, the economic behaviors and systems that we see are interpreted in terms of the underlying science. So banking operations are explained by a science of economics, but the specific actions taken and the goals of banking itself are in fact purposeful. They are technical solutions to attain specific ends. The product of science is statements of truth that explain a specific system and it's behavior. It doesn't judge the behavior, it explains it.
If a specific political institution or organization or system (liberalism) is a technical solution to an end, then the underlying science is one that explains the behavior of the system.
The science of human action is praxeology. Economics, as Mises pointed out is one specific branch of praxeology, but it's not all. He, in fact, believed that a praxeological category of conflict was a legitimate basis for a science of Politics, he just never spent any time or energy on expanding on that thought. His focus was on economics and voluntary exchange, and the consequences in the economic realms of the categories of human action. He wanted to create an accurate and value-free science that explained the phenomena we see, and could be used to predict the necessary outcomes of policies, events, and behaviors that arise in reality and they're economic effects.
So, back to your point. Start with a definition of a category of conflict. Praxeological category. I have one, and I use it to analyze people's technical solutions. What you're missing is that you look at natural property rights and you assume there is a fundamental rightness to them. And intuitively there's something to it. After all, it's an emergent specific phenomena.
But... that doesn't explain the underlying phenomena in reality that causes the solution to occur. We don't even have a proper definition of a "problem" it solves.
To me the core concept is a praxeological definition of conflict. When I define it please throw out your understanding, just so my definition is clear, not because yours isn't useful.
Here goes, in human action a single human mind imagines a future reality he wishes to create that is better than one he believes will exist. Now all human action necessarily constitutes an intersection of 4 components. 1) a specific human mind, 2) a specific subset of all the matter and energy in the universe, 3) a specific subset of the entire volume of space, and 4) a specific subset of time. The mind directs 2) at or through a specifc 3) for a specific period of 4). This 4 part intersection, we might call use. Meaning that when I perform an action I "use" matter in a specific place for a specific quantity of time.
If we introduce a second mind, it is possible that the two minds may attempt, actions that cannot both happen because they require metaphysically incompatible arrangements of matter in space and time. That is the essential fact in reality to which I attach the idea of conflict.
Reality has no issue, both men act, reality decides the outcome based on it's natural laws. All of man's knowledge production is driven by the desire to not only try to create specific results in reality (ends), but to succeed. The possibility of failure is defined as risk arising from uncertainty.
Social action is action that a man takes to alter the behavior of another man. But I can engage in action that treats you as inanimate matter, I can carry you, I can move you, I can arrange your limbs. This is not social action. Social action requires me to understand you as capable of human action. In which case, I interact with you as if you have knowledge, emotion, understanding, goals, ends, and some awareness of means.
So, talking to you is a social action. It assumes you are an acting man as I am. I assume you can understand me, and think. All social action is designed to use another human being as means to an end, but is separated from other action in that it interprets you as an acting man too and all that his implies.
If action generically is means to ends, and our knowledge, science, technology is specifically for attaining ends in a more certain way, than would be possible without them, then in human action any knowledge, science, or technology implemented in the social sphere has that goal also. Meaning that a technology for communication(language) reduces the risk of failure in using the other human being as means to an end.
Scarcity is the source of the conflict category above. Scarcity is the source of choice in man in the individual realms (interacting with reality itself), then scarcity is the source of conflict in social action. Meaning that where there is no scarcity conflict cannot arise, but given scarcity it must arise.
So, given that use of scarce means is the phenomena that gives rise to conflict, we can describe any social means of resolving the conflict as a political solution. We call this conflict resolution. The primordial solution is to "fight", using various intimidation or aggression techniques to dissuade "the other" from continuing on his course of action. Note that intimidation, threat, fighting all impute human action and purposeful behavior to "the other". I don't need to communicate with you, simply seeing you taking my cow, shows me that you are purposeful. I don't attack a lightning storm for scaring and chasing away my herd, or for burning half my field. But I will attack a human (or an animal for that matter) for doing the same. I impute purposeful action to the behavior. Communication within social groups opens another avenue for social action. Not only can I engage in threatening displays, or physical deterrence, now I can communicate ideas back and forth. "Mine!", "Mine!".
Who's right? We find that every social group and every language has words for and concepts about and norms that are "understood", about how right of use is legitimized within the social group. Why? Because it's a technical solution to the scarcity problem. It's possible for us to engage in these higher level resolution behaviors, because of our knowledge and communication. But still that isn't sufficient. The norms and rules by which social groups define and enforce "legitimate claims of use" reduce the costs (risks) associated with such conflicts. Therefore regardless of what the specific norms are, we will find that norms that are more efficient (reduce friction and costs) for the social group will survive and thrive and lead to better survival chances for that group when it's competing with other social groups in the larger context.
Now given the formal definition of the source of conflict, we find that by identifying the core intersection of mind, matter, space, and time, we can see the 4 elements that must be present in any social norm or law about "rights". These norms that define "legitimate claim of use" are the root form or the superset of what man thinks of as property rights.
If you look closely at natural law, we find that property rights, and disputes over property always boil down to how the norms are defined, and which norms apply.
Acquisition of property describes a process by which man acquires a "legitimate use claim" to a specific set of matter and points to when it starts. If it's land, then we assume that it exists in a specific location. We have other norms that describe what constitutes abandonment, and squatters rights, etc. ,etc. These are technical solutions to the praxeological conflict category.
Specific technical solutions result in specific and praxeologically necessary side effects in a society. For example, public ownership = tragedy of the commons. Common ownership is a legitimate technical solution. Reality allows it. But praxeology (economic, and political) explains the necessary side effects (tragedy of the commons). Wise social groups throw out public ownership, because they don't want (normative) the necessary consequences.
So, when I bring up please be more clear in the way they are defined. I have a good reason. The way things are now, you are co-mingling theory and technology, and by doing so it makes the choice a muddled one.
But this is the state of all of politics today. Breaking them apart would do for Politics, what Austrian Economics has done for Economics.
I did it above. All conflict resolution technology is a response to the necessary underlying condition, scarce resources + n>1 acting men. You can say it's "not significant" but it is. Saying something else doesn't make it so. Good technology in this area = efficient conflict resolution. After all, the reason we want natural property rights is so that the rules are clear. My argument elsewhere is that the highest value for any political system is unbiased results. Meaning that I know going in that I will be regarded as equal to the litigant on the other side. The second thing we would want is for the political technology to produce a vibrant, thriving and stable social ecosystem (both for economic production, and for leisure, arts, science, etc.).
One of the advantages of common law, was that it's plain and clear. Less conflict appear before the court, because the two litigants can realize pretty quickly what hte likely outcome will be and thus avoid actually wasting their resources in the court itself. Even more so, clear and well-known laws make it easy to avoid such disputes by understanding what behaviors lead to disputes. If we have clear definitions of property, I know how to recognize that something is another man's property (think branding cattle and horses, fencing of fields). This is the value-free analysis of the side effects.
Leave it to men to make the normative evaluation on their own. Our job is to give proper and clear analysis of the consequences of the political technology that they are choosing.
Socialism is the technological equivalent of a divining rod. Seriously, good political and economic theory makes this clear. We don't have to argue about it, we just show it for what it is. Some people may still believe in their divining rod... Not much you can do about that. Most will move on to better more effectie technology.
I hope by now you see the point I'm making if not, then...
BTw, here is one point to make. When we talk about inalienable rights, I think it's important that we acknowledge a fundamental real difference between the body of a man, and all other matter in reality. I have direct (brain to nerve to muscle) control over my physical body. I have "direct use" of it. No other man can use it in the way I do. All other matter in reality must be used by me through "indirect use". Meaning that I must use my body directly to use other matter (thus the term indirect). That's a qualitative differentiation. It explains the origins of inalienable and the idea of self-ownership. Because if ownership is "legitimate claim of use", then the direct use claim would of course be the most difficult one to overcome. It's very expensive to use you indirectly without your voluntary cooperation.
So there's a good reason for us to adopt norms that respect the direct use claim above and before all other claims. But tthat still doesn't move that norm out of technical space, and into theory space. It just explains why the speciic technical solution (self-ownership) happens to be a dominant norm in most societies. Think however, about child rearing in various societies..
Thanks, that would have been useful about 15 years ago when I started :).
Damn, ended up responding twice...
Oh well.
David B:So having spent a lot of time for many years in the books of Rothbard and Mises, Spooner and Thoreau and Spencer, Rand, Nozick. Reading Walt Williams, Lew Rockwell, etc., etc. for at least 10+ years now, its a little demeaning to have someone suggest that I go watch some beginner's videos on politics.
You're right. You did sound like a newb. Not sure what that means, if all those "credentials" you list off are accurate.
*shrug*
Sorry?
In the end, in the Ethics of Liberty one thing sits wrong with me. To get there, you have to start however, with Praxeology and Mises. It all begins with the ought/is dichotomy. The source of IS statements (or truth) is Reality. Meaning to make statements of fact, is to say something that's true. But ought statements, the normative arises from man. It arises from intentionality, from purposeful behavior, from human action. Mises understood this, and got what it really means. Mises provided a value-free science of human action. He called it praxeology. He makes truth statements about the a priori categories that arise from the category of human action. Praxeology doesn't make Capitalism right. The "rightness" of Capitalism is a value judgment each man makes on his own. All praxeology gives us is value-free analysis of the consequences of private property and voluntary exchange, such a system is called the Free Market, or Capitalism. But the science of Praxeology is incomplete. Mises recognized that he had a value-free science that was the mother science from which all social science flowed, but something was missing : The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science - Up to now the only part of praxeology that has been developed into a scientific system is economics. A Polish philosopher, Tadeusz Kotarbinski, is trying to develop a new branch of praxeology, the praxeological theory of conflict and war as opposed to the theory of cooperation or economics. Now, I can't read Polish, so I'm left to wonder what happened to this work. I've looked and I can't find a continuation. But when I found this line in my most recent reading of Mises work, I was left wondering if I hadn't hit on something in my previous article on ender's website. There is a metaphysical real occurence of men acting with plans that cannot both be implemented in reality and both achieve their end. Feeling I'd hit on something I wrote "All Human Science starts with Praxeology", I make this argument : Praxeology is not only the basis of a science of Economics, but is also the foundation of epistemology, logic, geometry, arithmetic, all natural science, ethics, and politics. This is a wild claim, I know that. In The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, Ludwig von Mises constructs a philosophical argument that praxeology is not only the basis of a science of Economics, but also that human action is the foundation of epistemology, logic, geometry and arithmetic. I think he missed something else though. I believe that human action (intentional choice followed by physical change in the world, by intelligent, knowledge using humans), also provides a priori categories from which we can derive a logical foundation, or source, of the fields of Ethics and Politics. He made it abundantly clear to me that one needs to be clear about dividing between value-free theory (or science) and purpose driven application of theory (or technology). And what's missing in modern political science, is science. In particular it's not a value-free science rooted in praxeology. Liberalism, Natural Property Rights, Voluntarism, Socialism, Communism, etc. are technology. In some cases people are able to get away with the political equivalent of divining rods (socialism, democracy, anarcho-communism), and it's because we don't have a value-free scientific theory of politics. We can't even give the boundaries of the problem domain.
Cool story bro.
Oh I get it. That was supposed to be your knife throwing moment in which you bust out all your skills and wow the crowd into seeing you're not the novice they all thought you were. Slick snot right there.
David B:Kokesh can be as eloquent as he'd like to be, and I happen to have been making these same argumetns and having these same discussions for years.
Yes, yes, we get it. You're an expert voluntaryist with many years of experience in voluntarying. May all due honors bestow upon thee.
That doesn't solve the problem I'm pointing out.
And what problem would that be exactly? It sounded to me like all you were talking about was a simple misunderstanding due to ill-defined terms:
"The problem here is in how coercion, rights, and in particular property are defined."
But hey, you're the expert here, so don't let me tell you how your post reads. I'm just a humble forum hobbiest. Nothing like you esteemed Blogspot bloggers.
David B: John James:Give some examples of where this relationship is not (or cannot be made to be) easily seen (or at least easily enough), and these conflicts that "must" arise. I don't see them being many, or that significant.Then you fail to understand and recognize the enormous importance of the existence of law. Not that law is the right solution to the social phenomena which gives rise to it, but that it's existence in and of itself points to a significant and important social phenomena that bears analysis and explanation. Because the source of law is human action, praxeology is the starting point for understanding the entire political sphere, of which law is part.
John James:Give some examples of where this relationship is not (or cannot be made to be) easily seen (or at least easily enough), and these conflicts that "must" arise. I don't see them being many, or that significant.
I'm sorry were there some examples I missed in there somewhere?
David B: John James:"acting like states aren't one type of solution to that problem is ridiculous." K. Acting like shooting you in the face isn't a solution for you looking at me funny is ridiculous. I mean, it solves the problem, does it not?Good you get my point.
John James:"acting like states aren't one type of solution to that problem is ridiculous." K. Acting like shooting you in the face isn't a solution for you looking at me funny is ridiculous. I mean, it solves the problem, does it not?
K. Acting like shooting you in the face isn't a solution for you looking at me funny is ridiculous. I mean, it solves the problem, does it not?
YAY! I got one!
There's nothing inherent in the action, or in our current definition of human action (Praxeology in Mises work) that explains or defines what makes any action right or wrong. In fact it can't, nor should it.
Ah but your definition can! After all, "[Mises] missed something"...something "[you] hit on"...human action actually provides a priori categories from which we can derive ethics!
I guess I can see why you were so offended now. I mean, you picked up the slack left by one of the greatest economists of all time...you saw what he didn't, and even published it on your Blogspot blog!...and here you are on a lame-o Internet forum and some lowly forum contributor completely missed your shimmering brilliance and mistook you for a newb. Womp womp womp.
I guess I'd be a little uppity too.
Praxeology explains why that's so. Praxeology doesn't say it's a wrong solution. It just has necessary side effects.
Did someone say otherwise? Why is this even relevant?
...as of course I'm so confused as to what you've been doing so far in this post...
For some more thoughts of mine on these issues look here, that's probably the best post I've participated in. In particular this, this, this, and this A Praxeological category of conflict is the necessary root of a praxeological science of Politics, here and here are some of posts on that topic.
Kickass. I'll be sure and get these to over to Kirzner and Hoppe right away.
And this makes you special, how exactly?
David B:wth? My response just got held for moderator approval?
Yes, Ace. That happens. I'd link you to the newbie thread that explains all that, but I'm afraid of disgracing you and your family.
@John James,
Do you have any response to the substance of my argument?
You really didn't have to be so defensive about it, but it seems you got the point. You might not want to introduce yourself to people you haven't seen on the board, by assuming they're a newb. Respect and curiousity it gets you farther. And yeah, I bite back.
Also, you're damn right I'm intellegent enough to handle a conversation with Mises, or Hoppe, or Rothbard. They are or were brilliant men, but I sure as hell wouldn't be ashamed to bring my own curiousity and intellect and ideas to the table. Would you? You aren't shy about it here.
Quite frankly, I'd love to have a conversation about Hoppe specifically. I do have an idea, I'm a bit perplexed that I can't find any Austrian papers about it. It seems a bit obvious to me, but that doesn't mean someone else didn't think about it and discard it already for other equally obvious reasons. If you'd care to help me find the obvious reason, thanks, if not, so be it. I'll keep thinking about it, and presenting it. It's how I look at the problem domain.
Do you really get this individualist stuff you're spouting? We don't hero worship, we don't abdicate the intellectual responsiblity to do the work, and we don't back away from engaging in rational discussion. We don't run from presenting or facing and hearing criticism about our own ideas.
The point I was making specific to this thread is that the free market isn't "ungoverned". Even individual property rights under Natural Law assume some norms and social rules about what the boundary conditions are for establishing what constitutes a legitimate ownership claim, and what doesn't qualify. These are socially produced rules, NOT givens from the underlying reality, not given by God, not built into our nature. How they effect the social group IS governed by reality. It's part of the feedback loop. A science of Politics would provide the rules that explain what gives rise to these norms and laws, and would provide analysis that explained the feedback effects that specific rules would necessarily have on the social action within the group.
In laymans terms the property rules directly affect how the economic interaction occurs. The property rules in communist governments guaranteed the self-destruction of the system, as necessary side effects. The beauty of what Mises did was to demonstrate the necessary side-effects of certain political systems and economic policies, based on the economic effects. Value-free analysis based in praxeology. He didn't have to say socialism was bad, he had to demonstrate the inability to calculate prices, and the inevitable total destruction of any pre-existing capital accumulation. We aren't doing this in modern politics. Actually, libertarian circles are more than most, but that's because of Austrian Economics, more than it is due to Natural Property Rights, or NAP. NAP is idealist pie-in-the sky stuff that attracts young kids. The economics stuff is the logically irrefutable meat that gets the middle-aged and older people.
I like NAP too, don't get me wrong. But you should know by now that you can argue around in circles about it, and you still end up with someone somewhere deciding whether or not someone's use of force is legitimate or not, and that's the linchpin for corruption.
Currently governments are the social institutions that carry out the development, implementation and evolution of property law. They manage to maintain the monopoly by asserting and aggressively defending a monopoly on the use of force.
So the answer I'd offer to the original question is, we can remove governments as we know them, but you can't discard having some solution for the property/dispute issues that politics arises from.
The add-on point is, getting to some next gen political technology (like DROs, Private Defense organizations, even back to private city states and loose confederations) requires a practical path. Without understanding the technology we have, and understanding what's possible from where we are, how to we chart a path to where we'd like to go?
Do you think a revolution would result in anything better than what the Soviet Union got? They revolted, congrats "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Our Political theory has some growing up to do.
Oh yeah, and thanks, I like getting into a little contentious discussion every once in a while, get's the juices flowing.
David B:Do you have any response to the substance of my argument?
What argument? Again, for all your verbiage, the only relevant thing it seems you've possibly said here is it can be a problem when people don't properly define their terms.
I guess you'll have to excuse me while I formulate a response to that "argument". But I'm gonna warn you this may take me a while, as that is quite a doozy.
You really didn't have to be so defensive about it, but it seems you got the point.
Defensive? Are you mistaking yourself for me? Who snapped at who here? You made a post, I responded in good faith, and bothered to provide some helpful resources links.
You got offended and went on a self-congratulatory tirade of masturbation so as to showcase your lack of need for any input. And you're calling me defensive?
You might not want to introduce yourself to people you haven't seen on the board, by assuming they're a newb.
Well excuse me for trying to help, Sunshine. Perhaps if you didn't sound like such a newb...
David B:Respect and curiousity it gets you farther.
The irony is almost palpable.
And yeah, I bite back.
Back from what? Again, I provided you some links. You got offended that I would possibly not recognize you as the genius who cleaned up Mises' mess, and snapped at me.
For someone apparently so focused on human action you have a real problem with projection.
Also, you're damn right I'm intellegent enough to handle a conversation with Mises, or Hoppe, or Rothbard.
I don't recall saying that. I'm not sure wher you got the idea I believed that. But hey, as long as you're still trying to recover that bruised ego I guess you might as well start agreeing with compliments no one ever paid you.
David B:They are or were brilliant men, but I sure as hell wouldn't be ashamed to bring my own curiousity and intellect and ideas to the table. Would you? You aren't shy about it here.
Geez you really are hurt by that post aren't you.
Good for you! You keep at it, and don't let anyone mistaking you for a newbie get ya down! (But of course I don't have to tell an unphased seasoned expert like you that, now would I.)
I don't know what this is supposed to be or where it's coming from or how it's relevant to anything.
David B:If you think my point was simply ill-defined terms then you missed the point completely.
Oh forgive me. I must have been fooled by the first sentence of your post which read:
In laymans terms the property rules directly affect how the economic interaction occurs. The property rules in communist governments guaranteed the self-destruction of the system, as necessary side effects. The beauty of what Mises did was to demonstrate the necessary side-effects of certain political systems and economic policies, based on the economic effects. Value-free analysis based in praxeology. He didn't have to say socialism was bad, he had to demonstrate the inability to calculate prices, and the inevitable total destruction of any pre-existing capital accumulation. We aren't doing this in modern politics. Actually, libertarian circles are more than most, but that's because of Austrian Economics, more than it is due to Natural Property Rights, or NAP. NAP is idealist pie-in-the sky stuff that attracts young kids. The economics stuff is the logically irrefutable meat that gets the middle-aged and older people. I like NAP too, don't get me wrong. But you should know by now that you can argue around in circles about it, and you still end up with someone somewhere deciding whether or not someone's use of force is legitimate or not, and that's the linchpin for corruption.
What any of this has to do with the point of the thread, I have no idea.
In other news, water is wet, the Sun is hot, and Pelosi's had work done.
David B:Oh yeah, and thanks, I like getting into a little contentious discussion every once in a while, get's the juices flowing.
I'm sure you did enjoy your masturbation. Most people do.
"Juices flowing." I'll have to remember that one.
John James: cab21:one part of the second amendment video , at about 14 minutes, about the regulated militia confused me. it seemed to say that men were mandated to have guns and report to a miliatia commander, and this was supposedly separate from a government? Separate from the Federal Government, for sure. The Constitution is what instituted the Federal Government in the first place, so obviously any "requirements" prior to that came from some smaller source. Notice right before the statement you're talking about, the narrator states "colonial militias had been in existence for over 150 years..." Militias are generally considered a local thing, until they are called upon to band together for a larger threat. Notice, at 8:50, the narrator states "...the founders opposed anything but a small national military." If you look at the history, there doesn't seem to be any large scale legislation on the subject until after the Constitution. Note: "[George Washington] experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative." what makes a citizen miltia different from a government if people are mandated to have guns and report? Nothing. But that's irrelevant because no one is trying to differentiate them. The video is making the case for the 2nd Amendment and the meaning of the words at the time they were written. (Which is the only meaning that matters). Remember, the Constitution is a minarchist creation...which itself created the Federal Government. So none of the founders were trying to make an argument for a truly (i.e. literally) free society like what we're talking about here. Notice I only linked the video in supplement to your point about "if there is a call for a monopoly on the use of force". That is a hypothetical that obviously assumes a not-free society, at least in the absolute terms you're seeing people speak of here.
The video seems to gloss over the battle in the formation of the constitution between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Bill of Rights was a victory of the Anti-Federalists. When they say the "Founders", we need to remember that it was actually very contentious. Libertarians tend to feel a kindred connection with the Anti-Federalists represented by men like Thomas Jefferson and George Mason. Even at the time, there was recognition that the northern more populous states had the potential to use the federal government as a coercive tool to override the rights of states which at the time were considered to take precedence over the federation which arises from the authority of the states.
Regardless of how we view the rights of the states vs. the rights of the individuals as libertarians, that was the political battlefield. This battle carried through until it finally got resolved, in the wrong way, through the civil war. The battle is still going on in some forms, in todays society. We still hear about state's rights in today's US political discussions, usually from conservatives. But it's much less vocal.
From a pragmatic point of view pushing decentralization of control can only help all of us in the long run. I've argued that the most effective political organiztion of society that we've ever seen was loose confederations of city-states. Good link here. One statement there, is that "such small political entities often survived only for short periods because they lacked the resources to defend themselves against incursions by larger states."
I wonder if in today's world the global access to information couldn't be used as a counterbalance the large state incursions in todays world that are offered as explanations of the failure of city states in that day and time. I think these loose confederations lead to rapid population and economic growth of some of the cities and it forces the other cities to compete for labor and capital investment. If we can find, test, and deploy social tactics that prevent large states from swallowing smaller city-states, that would significantly help the cause of liberty. In addition, finding ways to prevent the annexation of existing modern city-states would also be a pragmatic victory.
Hoppe has some really interesting analysis of this in one of his lectures that I got from itunes. He showed a connection between the populations of cities in the world throughout history shows a direct correlation to the political climate for the accumulation of wealth. If DROs are the ultimate anarcho-capitalist goal. We need to encourage secession and "self-determination" in all it's forms, sooner or later we'll get there. But it's going to take a circuitous path. We won't snap our fingers and wake up in a tomorrow where the NAP and Natural Property Rights are the "law of the land".
Some examples of secession are the breakups of Yugoslavia, USSR, Czechoslovakia, Congo. Some examples of existing city states : Vatican, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, Morocco.
So, one metric for the prospects of liberty would be whether or not Hong Kong can maintain it's autonomy from mainland China. Additional successful secessions would be interesting. and of course there's the UAE. Privately owned government in it's only visible form.
I guess we'll have to agree to not be very impressed with each other.
John James: David B:Do you have any response to the substance of my argument? What argument? Again, for all your verbiage, the only relevant thing it seems you've possibly said here is it can be a problem when people don't properly define their terms. I guess you'll have to excuse me while I formulate a response to that "argument". But I'm gonna warn you this may take me a while, as that is quite a doozy.
Yet again, do you get the difference between theory and technology? Science vs. engineering?
Perhaps it would've been better to say it's not just about definitions. It's more specifically how you arrive at a definition and the strength of the definiton for forming useful conclusions. I don't know how much time you've spent in Mises's and Hoppe's work in particular with regards to praxeology.
Defensive? Are you mistaking yourself for me? Who snapped at who here? You made a post, I responded in good faith, and bothered to provide some helpful resources links. You got offended and went on a self-congratulatory tirade of masturbation so as to showcase your lack of need for any input. And you're calling me defensive?
Yawn, ok get over it. Let's find some substantive comments from you... Demonstrate real knowledge, not echoing links of others.
Whenever you're done...
David B:Respect and curiousity it gets you farther. The irony is almost palpable. And yeah, I bite back. Back from what? Again, I provided you some links. You got offended that I would possibly not recognize you as the genius who cleaned up Mises' mess, and snapped at me.
Christ, get over yourself already. You deserved it. Evidently you didn't like it :).
Still waiting for something, substantive. And have you spent time in Mises? He didn't leave a mess. Oh wait have you spent much time actually listening here? I read and listened to your links. Have you?
Hmm... I tend to link introductory articles for people asking for those things, otherwise I think it's more useful to spend the time directly discussing it with someone. Not sure what this means here.
Also, you're damn right I'm intellegent enough to handle a conversation with Mises, or Hoppe, or Rothbard. I don't recall saying that. I'm not sure wher you got the idea I believed that. But hey, as long as you're still trying to recover that bruised ego I guess you might as well start agreeing with compliments no one ever paid you.
You implied I'm not. Though of course it would've helped if I could spell intelligent. So we've bruised each other's egos. Tell me when you get over it and want to actually discuss something of substance, or you can keep running away with more of this juvenile crap.
David B:They are or were brilliant men, but I sure as hell wouldn't be ashamed to bring my own curiousity and intellect and ideas to the table. Would you? You aren't shy about it here. Geez you really are hurt by that post aren't you.
Maybe so, I'll be ok...
Quite frankly, I'd love to have a conversation about Hoppe specifically. I do have an idea, I'm a bit perplexed that I can't find any Austrian papers about it. It seems a bit obvious to me, but that doesn't mean someone else didn't think about it and discard it already for other equally obvious reasons. If you'd care to help me find the obvious reason, thanks, if not, so be it. I'll keep thinking about it, and presenting it. It's how I look at the problem domain. Good for you! You keep at it, and don't let anyone mistaking you for a newbie get ya down! (But of course I don't have to tell an unphased seasoned expert like you that, now would I.)
still waiting for anything intelligent.
Do you really get this individualist stuff you're spouting? We don't hero worship, we don't abdicate the intellectual responsiblity to do the work, and we don't back away from engaging in rational discussion. We don't run from presenting or facing and hearing criticism about our own ideas. I don't know what this is supposed to be or where it's coming from or how it's relevant to anything.
Do you have anything that you write? Do you author any points of view? Do you respond to any arguments with substantive responses? Or do you just link spam?
David B:If you think my point was simply ill-defined terms then you missed the point completely. Oh forgive me. I must have been fooled by the first sentence of your post which read: "The problem here is in how coercion, rights, and in particular property are defined."
Haha, nice catch, finally touche. Yes, you're right. Let me restate: "The problem here is how one arrives at definitions for such things as property, coercion and rights."
In laymans terms the property rules directly affect how the economic interaction occurs. The property rules in communist governments guaranteed the self-destruction of the system, as necessary side effects. The beauty of what Mises did was to demonstrate the necessary side-effects of certain political systems and economic policies, based on the economic effects. Value-free analysis based in praxeology. He didn't have to say socialism was bad, he had to demonstrate the inability to calculate prices, and the inevitable total destruction of any pre-existing capital accumulation. We aren't doing this in modern politics. Actually, libertarian circles are more than most, but that's because of Austrian Economics, more than it is due to Natural Property Rights, or NAP. NAP is idealist pie-in-the sky stuff that attracts young kids. The economics stuff is the logically irrefutable meat that gets the middle-aged and older people. I like NAP too, don't get me wrong. But you should know by now that you can argue around in circles about it, and you still end up with someone somewhere deciding whether or not someone's use of force is legitimate or not, and that's the linchpin for corruption. What any of this has to do with the point of the thread, I have no idea.
Well, it's my support for the statement below ,which you consider to be the equivalent of stating the obvious. But if the stuff above doesn't make sense to you then explain to me in your own words, why the following is true?
So the answer I'd offer to the original question is, we can remove governments as we know them, but you can't discard having some solution for the property/dispute issues that politics arises from. In other news, water is wet, the Sun is hot, and Pelosi's had work done.
He asked whether or not it's possible. That's an argument that explains that it's possible, but that it's not some anarchistic, unruled chaos. That the order can and in fact must arise as an emergent phenomena from the underlying facts of reality and human action. However, maybe what you're missing is that revolutions in politics don't necessarily lead to the imagined nirvanna that idealists imagine. As much as I like Rothbard, I love Hoppe for the fact that he engages in theorizing about how to get to a more libertarian reality. Intead of simpy pontificating about the moral superiority of Natural Rights and NAP.
The cautionary point of the discussion is that focus on practical application is necessary and important, and like any other "engineering" endeavor, Good theory is necessary.
I can't "fix Mises's mess", he didn't leave one. There are lots of people (including Hayek) and Rothbard who diverged from him. I agree with Rothbard in that he didn't view the state as an inevitable He pointed at work he wasn't doing in the field, and said there's something here. I think Hoppe's looked at it, but I don't think he ever really dove into that problem domain specifically.
I guess maybe you haven't gotten to the point where you dig more deeply into the fundamental issues and look behind the curtain. For example, there are disagreements that matter between Rothbard and Mises. Mises remained staunchly utilitarian, and believed the state served a necessary purpose. Rothbard carved out Natural Property Rights, and rejected a purely utilitarian view of the state. I've wondered if Natural Property Rights and voluntary association can't be recovered without throwing out the methodological individualism of Mises. Can we still maintain the value-free analysis of praxeology and extend it to cover a field, Politics, that Mises chose not to throw his immense intellectual effort at? He was a little busy in other areas, he was busy binding the micro and macro economic schools together through Theory of Money and Credit, and then in providing the Philosophical defense of a priori logical deductiion against the scientism of empiricism that had crept into modern economics.
But there are serious disconnects between authors of libertarian thought and much of the intellectual foundation on which it stakes it's claim. As we go down this path of learning economics and politics, especially as it relates to libertarianism, we must find ways, individually, to resolve these disagreements to our own satisfaction.
Liberalism and Capitalism, Mises rightly points out, are the social systems (one of economics, one of politics) by which man has risen so far and so fast, but they have still not ever reached the full expression that the authors of these ideas (in the 18th and 19th centuries) imagined they would one day reach. The modern versions are a far cry from the potential these social systems carry within them. Natural Property Rights and Common Law are the foundations of the Liberal social system. NAP is one of the fundamental principles, a normative principle, that sits underneath such a system. It's not however a fundamental given from reality... It's a technical solution, an ethical position from with which one evaluates a political system.
"Free market" is a tautology. Of course, there is a free market and government. Government is a participant of the market. You just don't happen to like this participant. That's just too bad.
It's always funny how fans of capitalism don't like the present state of capitalism, but never get the idea to blame capitalism. No, it has to be something else to save the ideology of a utopian "pure" capitalism.
if government creates the rules for a market, it is not just a participant in the market.
if government get's it's funding though taxes or even the government iself, it is not just another partipant in the market.
a market cannot be ruled over and free at the same time.
if people are forced to be part of government, it's not just another participant in the market.
pure communism is a utopia, pure capitalism is not a utopia.
do marxists love the current state of communism around the world
free market is not a tautology at all. free and regulated don't mean the same thing. voluntary and coercive don't mean the same thing, unanimous and majority don't mean the same thing
cab21: if government creates the rules for a market, it is not just a participant in the market. if government get's it's funding though taxes or even the government iself, it is not just another partipant in the market. a market cannot be ruled over and free at the same time. if people are forced to be part of government, it's not just another participant in the market. pure communism is a utopia, pure capitalism is not a utopia. do marxists love the current state of communism around the world free market is not a tautology at all. free and regulated don't mean the same thing. voluntary and coercive don't mean the same thing, unanimous and majority don't mean the same thing
The state is just the representation of the interests of the most powerful market participants, the bourgeoisie. They have their power because of their private property. Where the state is weak other representations are strong. It does not make much difference whether you pay taxes to your government or pay protection money to your free market mafia. The only difference is that the government does not operate in secret because it does not need to. The government mafia is so strong that it has a monopoly of employing violence. It has managed to write down its rules (and establish them as laws by force) and to enforce them by somewhat more civilized means than the mafia. The difference is a difference of degree, not of kind. Private property presupposes violence and property accumulates more property by exploitation. So every capitalist system automatically arrives at a sharp class division between a ruling class and a dominated class. Capitalism produces and needs the state. In order to get rid of the state, one should try to overthrow capitalism.
"if people are forced to be part of government, it's not just another participant in the market."
You are not forced to. At least the USA grant you to renounce your citizenship and become a stateless person. If any anarcho-capitalist is still a subject of this state which he allegedly hates so much, he is it because he chose to. There you have your free market. I wonder why so few anarcho-capitalists become stateless. It seems they appreciate the tyranny of the state after all. In practice, they are more comfortable with the present society under a state than their stateless utopia.
My thoughts are roughly along the same lines as David B.
What should be noted here is that the market requires preconditions which themselves cannot be a product of the market itself. The social/legal status of participants in the market, for instance, is not a matter for bargaining on the market. Another example of preconditions is the property regime in enforcement. These are the product of common understandings among actors that provide social context and meaning to actions which those actions themselves cannot produce, and their negotiation is an explicitly political exercise.
Government, the structure of which can take different forms, is always a part of the market and the “free market” is at most a theoretical heuristic, as defining a market as “free” involves a certain understanding of the legitimate use of force that defines away particular restriction on freedom of action by rendering them outside the legitimate scope of action and thus not a part of freedom at all.
The problem with John James and his ilk is that the framework they use to understand the world with prohibits the ability to understand the implication of these considerations and leads them to simply declare the problem to be one of definition without realizing the substantive consequences of differences in definition.
What anarcho-capitalists have yet to sufficiently explain, in my estimation, is the socially constitutive role of the state in the rise of capitalism and modernity. I believe the arguments for the privatization of the instrumental functions of the state are fairly convincing. The market provides a more efficient means for the provision services and thus the privatization of all functions of the state logically follows. However, the effects of the state in the construction of individuality and the resulting (very rough and proximate) tendency towards political equality and market parity of individuals is grossly neglected. And until that is corrected there will be a gaping hole in libertarian theory.
National Acrobat: My thoughts are roughly along the same lines as David B. What should be noted here is that the market requires preconditions which themselves cannot be a product of the market itself. The social/legal status of participants in the market, for instance, is not a matter for bargaining on the market. Another example of preconditions is the property regime in enforcement. These are the product of common understandings among actors that provide social context and meaning to actions which those actions themselves cannot produce, and their negotiation is an explicitly political exercise.
I appreciate the support. One of the reasons I'm arguing for a Praxeology of Political Action (as a peer of Praxeology of Economic Action) is based in the power that Austrian Economics brings in explaining and understanding how the economic phenomena arises from the categories of human action. Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, and Mises in particular built a system that starts in micro-economics with single actor, small level barter, individual production and exchange actions, and then (in Mises Theory of Money and Credit) constructed explanations of the macro-economic phenomena, money, markets, prices, interest, business cycles by building from the micro-economic environment.
My hope has been that a Praxeology of Conflict (Politics) would be able to achieve the same level of descriptive and constructive explanation, and do so with the same level of apodictic certainty. Start with the a priori categories of human action, explain the micro-level (2 party) conflict phenomena as an emergent condition of human action in reality, and from that build up to the macro-political level of nation states, war, diplomacy, propoganda, etc. Marx co-mingled the two realms in his work Das Kapital. While I firmly and emphatically reject his logical categories, I think he rightly understood that the two realms are both logically connected and are in fact incestuously intertwined in the real world we live in.
When one does in fact takes this approach of building the macro from the micro, it becomes obvious that some means of resolving conflicts is going to arise as a necessary response to individual conflict. How those solutions to conflict evolve through history is constrained by the categories of action. Historical social evolution has produced nation-states, that's a fact of reality. But this does not mean that they are the only possible solutions to the underlying phenomena that they emerge from.
Anarcho-capitalism rightly states that property is a necessary condition for economic action. In accepting this and arguing for DROs they have implicitly embraced the fact of property and conflict as necessary outcomes of scarcity in reality.
I've been using "right of use" as a descriptive term for the product of any social norm (no matter how informal or formal) which allows members of a social group to efficiently resolve conflict phenomena that arise in social groups around the use of scarce resources. If we were to trace back into pre-history through knowledge from archaeology and anthropology and then move forward through the history of civilization, we can be certain that we will find evidence of such norms in every social group at every level of organization, even if it's as simple as a dominance hierarchy like we see in wolves.
One would expect a gradual, non-linear increase in the complexity and sophistication of such social norms and in fact the rise of social institutions that are expected to actively participate in the formation and enforcement of such norms. Such institutions may take the form of father, tribal chief, respected elder, or more formal complex forms like legislatures and courts, noblens, etc. Again the point of such analysis is to explain how these things arise out of human action, not to judge them as "good" or "bad".
The value of Austrian Economics is in accurate explanation of the necessary consequences of economic action. Because of the tight interconnected nature of political action and economic action, Austrian Economics can also shed a very accurate and devastating light on the necessary economic effects of specific political interventions. A Praxeology of Conflict could only expand this ability to accurately explain the systems that exist, and more importantly potential systems that could replace existing political institutions with ones which men might value more because of the necessary consequences that different systems would have on the social life (in all its forms) of men.
DROs and anarcho-capitalism are considered by many to be an ideal social ecosystem for man. It actually makes a lot of sense to me. That doesn't mean we know how to build such a society. For example, just because someone has written a full technical paper describing the engineering requirements and a realistic design for a space elevator, doesn't mean man's science and technology are able to build such a technological device. I wonder the same thing about the anarcho-capitalist DRO society.
The fundamental social economic behavior is the exchange. Exchange presumes a transfer of some formal socially accepted "right of use". Even if one were to look at Native American tribes exchanging with early European settlers, we find that there are norms that both understood because they were common in both cultures (naturally emergent) and other norms that were not shared in common. The classic example of a mismatch in social norms is the sale of Long Island. In this case "owning land" meant one thing to the European, and another thing to the Native American, who scoffed at the very idea. However, exchanges of tools and weapons for agricultural products (meat, furs, corn, etc.) happened and were not dissonant because each social group had a substantially equivalent norm. A thing a man has can be exchanged for a thing I want.
I agree that the market presumes such a mechanism for discerning and legitimizing property claims. But the market also presumes other things to be in existence that are also produced using market phenomena. Money is an example, a complex catallactic economy requires money, and it arose as a precondition for market, but the market can also produce it. The same would be true for law. There's no reason a market can't produce such products and services. However, just because it's possible for the market to do so, isn't in an of itself sufficiently explanatory. We don't have a practical plan for transitioning from existing social institutions to DRO social institutions.
This is why I'm so fascinated by secession movements, and global availability of information. I'm wondering if a renaissance of city-state federations can once again become a viable solution as a bridging technology to the goal of private DRO's. Historically there were phenomena (political) that ended up crushing societies that implemented this political form. I'm hopeful that the global connectedness of the modern world can be used effecitvely as a political tool to counterbalance whatever it is that crushed these civilizations historically. As an example of some ideas in that vein, look up 4th Generation Warfare.
National Acrobat:Government, the structure of which can take different forms, is always a part of the market and the “free market” is at most a theoretical heuristic, as defining a market as “free” involves a certain understanding of the legitimate use of force that defines away particular restriction on freedom of action by rendering them outside the legitimate scope of action and thus not a part of freedom at all.
This is again why I think it's so important to separate the real factors that require a social solution to conflict, from the specific social institutions (states) that implement solutions to conflict issues. Government is a specific form these solutions take, but just like men are a specific form of biological life, that doesn't preclude other forms (for example, there's no reason to believe that it isn't possible to design intelligent acting dolphins.) Just because we haven't seen another solution doesn't mean it isn't possible. This is why I'm not actually a supporter of the state, though I do think it serves a purpose, and that this purpose is essential.
Every social group has rules about "legtimate" and illegitimate use of force. They are always connected with some theory of property, in effect if not in the specific language. Meaning denying property rights, is actually a form of public ownership. In communist societies they had mechanisms for resolving two farmers arguing over where one's field started and another's ended. Someone took possession of the products of the fields, regardless of what they called this "legitimate claim of use".
All of these norms are socially constructed, but the their existence is based in the reality of acting man and scarcity. In the end, if the members of society support a claim by one member of the group, and reject the claim of another member of the group. No matter how capricious or unfair or illogical the support might be. It is a solution. That is I believe how one can accurately interpret the concept of "RealPolitik". You may feel that a theft by government is wrong, and you can have all the supporting logic, and ethical high-ground on your side, and it doesn't matter, in the end, if no one stands with you against it, you lose the conflict.
Now one potential, and I think realistically achievable political unit that we can achieve is the rise of free city-states. The city-state ecosystem would presumably allow the free movement of wealth and capital between polities. This natural competition would force interfering and oppressive political institutions to adapt or wither and die. DRO's are an extension of this concept, that discards the idea of state-level territorial boundaries. This allows virtual movement of wealth and capital between competing political solutions, without requiring physical movement of individuals. Again, there are logical efficiency or utilitarian advantages to each of these two stages of a potential revolution of political institutions.
Again, one has to understand and explain the social phenomena that crushed such experiments historically. I don't see how one can expect success on this path by simply bemoaning the inequities of the current state of society. We need to also, understand and digest, the real factors that interfere with such transitions.
The problem with John James and his ilk is that the framework they use to understand the world with prohibits the ability to understand the implication of these considerations and leads them to simply declare the problem to be one of definition without realizing the substantive consequences of differences in definition. What anarcho-capitalists have yet to sufficiently explain, in my estimation, is the socially constitutive role of the state in the rise of capitalism and modernity. I believe the arguments for the privatization of the instrumental functions of the state are fairly convincing. The market provides a more efficient means for the provision services and thus the privatization of all functions of the state logically follows. However, the effects of the state in the construction of individuality and the resulting (very rough and proximate) tendency towards political equality and market parity of individuals is grossly neglected. And until that is corrected there will be a gaping hole in libertarian theory.
In Liberalism (Mises), makes the argument that the advances in science and technology and in the living conditions of man are a direct result of the extent to which men was able to implement the twin ideas of Liberalism and Capitalism. I don't think the massive state organizations ought to be viewed as a necessary component of this specific rise in man's condition. In other words, it might be a coincidental occurence, not a causal link. To contradict that however, we see the rise in formal society level institutions with the advent of agricultural societies. I think this is an obvious outcome of the scarcity issues that drive a hunter-gatherer society to agricultural societies, due to the ability of agriculture to sustain a higher population density within a specific geographic area.
In fact, in Hoppe and others, I've seen people make the argument that the city-state structure was the source of large sudden advancements in science, philosophy and technology. e.g. Greek City-States, Italy during the renaissance, europe later in the 2nd millenium AD, and continued into the US in the State level organization of political units. In between you find much slower levels of advancement.
I also wonder if the internet doesn't provide some of the "proximity" benefits of a relatively free city-state structure in the modern world, I don't have to move to a location in order to be around and share knowledge and ideas with people who share common interests.
a free market mafia cannot exist, there are no gangs in the free market. a business cannot be free market if it violates the funtions and definitions of a free market.
property gets more property through free trade, not exploitation. people volunteer to trade with one another and each profit from the trade.
capitalism does not need or produce a state , contracts dont need a state.
business have their rules written on paper as well.
the state claims land that it does not rightfully own. if a person renounces citizenship, they are then deemed a illigal and the state will steal the property and remove them from the land that the state claims. a person can't be stateless if the state claims land it does not rightfully own. it's not free market for a entity to claim ownership where there is no rightful claim to ownership. as far as citizinship. some people are citizens and never even knew it and never lived in the country and then are told they owe taxes.
anyone can own property, anyone can own means of ownership.
if the bourgeoisie relie on a state, its not free market capitalism, but crony capitalism or other system of mixed market. only other privite firms can represent free market.
collective ownership is no more free market than individual ownership, and initiation of force is not free market, it's required for a collective , but not for individuals.
David B:Perhaps it would've been better to say it's not just about definitions.
Oh you mean it would have been better to actually say what you mean? Yeah. Probably.
David B: John James:Defensive? Are you mistaking yourself for me? Who snapped at who here? You made a post, I responded in good faith, and bothered to provide some helpful resources links. You got offended and went on a self-congratulatory tirade of masturbation so as to showcase your lack of need for any input. And you're calling me defensive?Yawn, ok get over it. Let's find some substantive comments from you... Demonstrate real knowledge, not echoing links of others.
John James:Defensive? Are you mistaking yourself for me? Who snapped at who here? You made a post, I responded in good faith, and bothered to provide some helpful resources links. You got offended and went on a self-congratulatory tirade of masturbation so as to showcase your lack of need for any input. And you're calling me defensive?
Translation: I have no rebuttal to what you said because you're right, I was in fact the one who became snappy and defensive (because you bruised my ego by not realizing I've spent the last 15 years perfecting my experty expertise), and I was in fact projecting my own wrong onto you. So I'm just going to try to change the subject and again attempt to flip focus back on you while again still trying as best I can to come off as more of an experty expert, because I probably won't be able to forget about your mistaking me for a newbie for a long time.
There's that irony again.
Still waiting for something, substantive. And have you spent time in Mises?
I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean, but it sounds gross.
He didn't leave a mess. Oh wait have you spent much time actually listening here? I read and listened to your links. Have you?
...and I need to get over myself? You're like a walking case of irony.
It means you have an issue in which you cannot seem to avoid projecting your own ills onto others and accusing them of doing what it is that in fact you were doing.
None of this makes any sense. Where did my ego come into this? I replied to your post, directly addressed your points and offered you some links that I thought would help you. You got offended because I offered you those links and came back with a very snappy post, part of which was used to get your digs in, and the majority of which was evidently supposed to redeem your good name (among whom, I have no idea) and wow the forum with your amazing display of mental masturbation, which you keep seeming to think was actually a presentation of not only some profound insight that no one else has ever possibly come up with, but also some kind of argument that requires a response.
Once again, I broke down your post (regardless of its relevance or usefulness) and responded to it, addressing each piece accordingly.
I'm sorry if you don't feel like you got what you were looking for, but I simply responded to the things you said.
David B: John James:Geez you really are hurt by that post aren't you.Maybe so, I'll be ok...
John James:Geez you really are hurt by that post aren't you.
You say that, but the way all these posts of yours are going, I'm finding it really hard to believe.
David B: John James:Good for you! You keep at it, and don't let anyone mistaking you for a newbie get ya down! (But of course I don't have to tell an unphased seasoned expert like you that, now would I.)still waiting for anything intelligent.
John James:Good for you! You keep at it, and don't let anyone mistaking you for a newbie get ya down! (But of course I don't have to tell an unphased seasoned expert like you that, now would I.)
No I think you just have nothing else to say because all of your pedantic rambling — which was written out for no other reason than to serve your bruised ego — didn't really warrant any response, so you didn't get one, and were left with no satisfaction and no real way to win some intellectual sparring match you so desperately want so that you might by chance redeem yourself.
So now you're left in the hapless position of having to continue issuing responses to things that aren't even an argument (because an argument wasn't warranted)...for if you don't, you'll be left even more bruised than when you started. ...which is why the best you can come up with is this faux-challenge kind of language in which you attempt to make it seem as though there is some burden on me to make some case here, mixed in with some school yard "I can do X, can you?" nonsense (e.g. "I sure as hell wouldn't be ashamed to bring my own curiousity and intellect and ideas to the table. Would you?", "have you spent time in Mises?", "I read and listened to your links. Have you?") And of course all the meanwhile you make sure to call me juvenile. (Can't forget to include the projection, can we now.)
David B: John James:I don't know what this is supposed to be or where it's coming from or how it's relevant to anything.Do you have anything that you write? Do you author any points of view? Do you respond to any arguments with substantive responses? Or do you just link spam?
John James:I don't know what this is supposed to be or where it's coming from or how it's relevant to anything.
Here we go again. What is the relevance of any of this? What is with this incessant focus on me? The only thing I can figure is that you've devolved this simple case of mistaken experience into some kind of personal contest, in which everything you're posting is either a brag on yourself or a direct/indirect challenge on me. You're like some sensitive guy who takes things extremely personally, so when someone insults your mother and walks away, you have a need to chase after them and insult their mother back. And when they don't care and just keep on walking, you sprint to catch up so you can get in their face and challenge them to a duel.
I'm sorry bro. I don't know what to say. I don't have anything to prove, certainly not to you, and I honestly just don't have any interest in any contests.
As for link spam though, you might talk to some other forum members and see how they feel about it. I provide links that I think people might find useful, and based on the all the responses I've gotten over the past year and a half (this one notwithstanding) they've been found to be helpful. If you don't have any use for them, don't click them.
Since the rest of your post is simply you agreeing with me and then rambling on again with more of the same I describe above, I'll just leave it at that.
Look dude, I'm sorry that you were so hurt by my post. Really I am. Normally I wouldn't care, but you're obviously just so affected by it that I kinda do actually feel bad. Not a lot, but kinda. I wish there was some way to make you feel better about yourself, but I'm not entirely sure how to accomplish that.
The best I can say is probably the phrase posted when you were projecting earlier in this post, and tell you to "get over yourself." But I realize that may not help and in fact may only hurt your feelings more, so feel free to call me some names if it would help. I'll make sure you don't get reprimanded. I'll even agree to not respond, so you can post whatever you want and feel vindicated.
I'm not sure what else I can do.
Is it a free market if the most powerful individuals/groups of individuals, can do as they please, i.e. us force against others?